Critics of chimp cartoon on target

Almost as soon as the ink dried, the outrage started to flow. Of all the features in a newspaper, political cartoons are often the most visceral and controversial. Ask Sean Delonas, the political cartoonist for the New York Post. He depicted a policeman shooting a chimp, with another officer inspecting the carcass and saying, “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.” If critics had their way, the Post would find someone else to draw their next political cartoon.

The critics saw the chimp as a symbol of President Barack Obama, a charge Delonas denied. If the cartoonist himself is not racist, the cartoon itself was racially insensitive — colossally so. And the Post did nothing to ease the outrage — or hurt — with its initial refusal to apologize.

Then, once the paper did apologize, it did so ineptly, acknowledging that the cartoon had been taken as a “thinly veiled expression” of racism. “This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize,” an editorial stated. The editorial went on to say, however, that critics seizing an opportunity for “pay back” merited no apology.

You cannot nuance an apology. You are either sorry you did something or you are not. The cartoonist erred through his insensitivity, and the paper erred by playing politics with its apology. If ever an apology deserved an apology, this was it. Enter Rupert Murdoch. He has his critics, but the publisher finally did what his subalterns seemed unable to do. He said the right thing.

“It was not meant to be racist, but unfortunately, it was interpreted by many as such,” he said in a statement. “We hold all the readers of the New York Post in high regard, and I promise you that we will seek to be more attuned to the sensitvities of our community.”